3/23/09 | Senator seeks to halt sales of 'e-cigarettes'
- Thread starter halopunker
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- revolution
- Status
Wrote to Menendez and Singer awhile back (NJ) and also received form type response. Lousenberg is not king but NJ has big pharms behind every tree and at least 5 kiosks I know of have pretty much dropped dead in the last 2 days.
I called and had to leave a message with a secretary 
I just sent an email and hope it sounds ok. Let me know your thoughts.
The email I sent.......
I just sent an email and hope it sounds ok. Let me know your thoughts.The email I sent.......
I called and had to leave a message with a secretary
The email I sent.......
Exelent letter my good friend. All that matters is to soften the people's pain. All people pain, you pain more than others and others pain more than the others.
I hope senator read and understand.
When there is a new medicine for cancer or for something else, some people who will die either wants to try it and they cant access it because maybe it will "harm" them. What a joke.
As I had said, stup...d people
That Big Pharma article was excellent. I just hope it gets read enough to cause the Senator a little embarrassment. Unfortunately, everyone knows most of the motives behind people in congress is making their donors happy. Until there are term limits in the house, this will never change. But who will vote for that?
Just a question, maybe one for TB. I'm no legal expert and I've tried to follow much of the reasoning behind our changing perception of the apparent current FDA stand -- but there is a lot of information around here. What is the basis for our belief in the FDA having authority to regulate or to ban these products under current law?
The senator is merely reiterating paraphrasing from public news articles regarding the FDA stance in making his request to the FDA (which has said it would respond directly or privately to him) where it is claimed that the FDA regards these as drug/device combinations.
However the FDA may justify seizing imports through customs -- they have repeatedly stated that it was to be handled on a case by case basis. The reasoning behind this consistently appears to me to be based upon the requirement of there being literature containing health claims, in order for the e-liquid to be classified as a drug, and then only in that case for the items to be regarded under this definition as something within the current jurisdiction of the FDA.
It has variously been said that the FDA does or does not have the authority to regulate nicotine with the most credible statement being that the Supreme Court in 2000 reversed the assumption of powers by the FDA in 1996 to regulate tobacco and nicotine. Then our perception of the FDA position appeared to have changed but only because the FDA started enforcement. I counter that until new tobacco legislation is passed that nothing has really changed, and that the enforcement action is likely to be limited only to those products which, owing to health claims THEN bring the product under the jurisdiction of the FDA. If no health claims are made, then the e-liquid CANNOT be classified as a drug and thus the definition of a drug/device combination DOES NOT APPLY (under current law). I rather think this is why the FDA responded to the senator privately to clarify the position while appearing to be taking a tough public stance.
I may be wrong and TB, I think you've tried to elaborate on how the information available to us seemed to indicate a change in our understanding of how the FDA may have authority here. But it seems to me that all of this is based upon an assumption: that the FDA regards ALL e-cigarettes and e-liquid as drug/device combinations and I just don't think that the evidence so far confirms that this statement is true.
Referring back to this: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/law-e-cigarette/6641-real-scoop-fda-ecigarettes.html
It appears to me that the FDA has made very strong and specific statements concerning certain electronic cigarettes (specifically, "the ones they have reviewed") but I don't believe we can assume that these definitions necessarily apply to ALL electronic cigarettes when you consider the scope and basis of FDA authority.
I'm left believing that it all has to do again with definitions of intended use and claims that can be construed to represent health claims and which, as has always been the case with nutritional supplements for example, then may elicit an FDA response. And most certainly will in the case of these products as they have now come under heavy fire.
The senator is merely reiterating paraphrasing from public news articles regarding the FDA stance in making his request to the FDA (which has said it would respond directly or privately to him) where it is claimed that the FDA regards these as drug/device combinations.
However the FDA may justify seizing imports through customs -- they have repeatedly stated that it was to be handled on a case by case basis. The reasoning behind this consistently appears to me to be based upon the requirement of there being literature containing health claims, in order for the e-liquid to be classified as a drug, and then only in that case for the items to be regarded under this definition as something within the current jurisdiction of the FDA.
It has variously been said that the FDA does or does not have the authority to regulate nicotine with the most credible statement being that the Supreme Court in 2000 reversed the assumption of powers by the FDA in 1996 to regulate tobacco and nicotine. Then our perception of the FDA position appeared to have changed but only because the FDA started enforcement. I counter that until new tobacco legislation is passed that nothing has really changed, and that the enforcement action is likely to be limited only to those products which, owing to health claims THEN bring the product under the jurisdiction of the FDA. If no health claims are made, then the e-liquid CANNOT be classified as a drug and thus the definition of a drug/device combination DOES NOT APPLY (under current law). I rather think this is why the FDA responded to the senator privately to clarify the position while appearing to be taking a tough public stance.
I may be wrong and TB, I think you've tried to elaborate on how the information available to us seemed to indicate a change in our understanding of how the FDA may have authority here. But it seems to me that all of this is based upon an assumption: that the FDA regards ALL e-cigarettes and e-liquid as drug/device combinations and I just don't think that the evidence so far confirms that this statement is true.
Referring back to this: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/law-e-cigarette/6641-real-scoop-fda-ecigarettes.html
It appears to me that the FDA has made very strong and specific statements concerning certain electronic cigarettes (specifically, "the ones they have reviewed") but I don't believe we can assume that these definitions necessarily apply to ALL electronic cigarettes when you consider the scope and basis of FDA authority.
I'm left believing that it all has to do again with definitions of intended use and claims that can be construed to represent health claims and which, as has always been the case with nutritional supplements for example, then may elicit an FDA response. And most certainly will in the case of these products as they have now come under heavy fire.
Last edited:
I think the e-liquid which contains nicotine is the object of contention. If the FDA can say that the primary function of e-cigs is to deliver nicotine, they can say that the e-cig itself is a drug device. However, if the product contains no nicotine, they cannot claim it's a drug device. My advice to wholesalers concerned about having shipments confiscated would be to stop importing the e-cigs with nic-juice. Go only with the no nicotine liquid with your e-cig supplies. My understanding is that the FDA cannot touch you until they show that the e-cig is intended to be used to deliver a drug (nicotine).
Cheers,
-Mickey
Cheers,
-Mickey
Just a thought... but has anyone thought more about taking this to the general public.
We have seen short new casts about e-cigs. Giving the basics of un-educated facts. Most news slots that I have seen have given only the basic which do not give a positive or negative outlook on the e-cig, until the news casters put in their own 2 cents.
If a group of e-cig users could get together, contact a local news broadcaster and set-up a "users view" on new channels, giving our opinions and the health benifits that we have found. This will get to the general public. This could give us support from non-smokers.
Once again we are a minority, such as smokers. However our habit does not harm the general public. If the general public is aware of this, many will choose to support, knowing its either us using an e-cig or going back to tobacco.
I'm from Canada, so we dont have the issues of big pharma or lobbys. Our government cares about the cost to the system. Even with 5 billon in tax revenue, our health care system is still falling 10 billon short on the costs. So far there is no major word from our gov stating on where they stand on this issue. But if they do start to take a negative side, we will cause more of a fuss. We are beavers and we have a strong bite.
We have seen short new casts about e-cigs. Giving the basics of un-educated facts. Most news slots that I have seen have given only the basic which do not give a positive or negative outlook on the e-cig, until the news casters put in their own 2 cents.
If a group of e-cig users could get together, contact a local news broadcaster and set-up a "users view" on new channels, giving our opinions and the health benifits that we have found. This will get to the general public. This could give us support from non-smokers.
Once again we are a minority, such as smokers. However our habit does not harm the general public. If the general public is aware of this, many will choose to support, knowing its either us using an e-cig or going back to tobacco.
I'm from Canada, so we dont have the issues of big pharma or lobbys. Our government cares about the cost to the system. Even with 5 billon in tax revenue, our health care system is still falling 10 billon short on the costs. So far there is no major word from our gov stating on where they stand on this issue. But if they do start to take a negative side, we will cause more of a fuss. We are beavers and we have a strong bite.
I think that I'm going to mail the Senator a pack of cigarettes with a nice little note letting him know that I didn't smoke them today because of a e-cig. I think the DC office would have the best chance of someone else seeing the gift.
Here's the address if anyone else wants to do the same:
Frank Lautenberg
Hart Senate Office Building
Suite 324
Washington, DC 20510
Here's the address if anyone else wants to do the same:
Frank Lautenberg
Hart Senate Office Building
Suite 324
Washington, DC 20510
I know I'm really new here, and I might be overstepping my bounds, but I'm pretty sure there's federal regulations about transporting tobacco products (and their tax stamps) over state lines. We have enough problems as it is...and I'm sure they'd jump at the chance to make a HUGE issue out of it.
Just tryin' to keep ya out of trouble. Well, more trouble, anyway.
Imagine the world before coffee as a liquid. Let us say for an example that they decided to make coffee cigarettes for delivery of caffine.
Flash forward to the imaginary current date and the deadly ingredients of the smoke itself from the "caffine" cigarettes is now causing an uproar because 2nd hand smoke of "caffine" cigarettes. These "caffine" cigarettes cause cancer in smokers and non-smokers. What if they invented a new "caffine" delivery system in the form of an electronic cigarette with no carcinogens and no cancer causing agents. Would you then say "NO"?
Now, back to the real world and now we are talking about nicotine. Is it really that different? Could you really say that an electronic cigarette is bad "ONLY" because it resembles a real cigarette? If nicotine started out as tobacco tea, would we even be in this predicament?
DO NOT ban electronic cigarettes only because what they resemble.
The resemblance is only to help encourage people who smoke real cigarettes (causing cancer) to convert to a safe solution. 5 to 10 years from now they will evolve and change to look nothing like cigarettes because nobody in their right mind would continue to subject themselves to cancer voluntarily when there is a safe solution.
Honestly, think about it; Real cigarettes are legal, but they definately cause cancer! Isn't that the problem? The problem has not gone away in the last 30 or more years, it has only gotten worse. Electronic cigarettes WILL solve the problem. They will simply eliminate real cigarettes. No more lung, mouth and throat cancer.
Now, all that said; Who in their right mind would possibly even consider saying "stop e-cig sales"??? The only possible person who could possibly say such a ludicrous thing would be someone who is either ignorant or one who makes a profit from the sales of real cigarettes.
There is my 2 cents worth
Flash forward to the imaginary current date and the deadly ingredients of the smoke itself from the "caffine" cigarettes is now causing an uproar because 2nd hand smoke of "caffine" cigarettes. These "caffine" cigarettes cause cancer in smokers and non-smokers. What if they invented a new "caffine" delivery system in the form of an electronic cigarette with no carcinogens and no cancer causing agents. Would you then say "NO"?
Now, back to the real world and now we are talking about nicotine. Is it really that different? Could you really say that an electronic cigarette is bad "ONLY" because it resembles a real cigarette? If nicotine started out as tobacco tea, would we even be in this predicament?
DO NOT ban electronic cigarettes only because what they resemble.
The resemblance is only to help encourage people who smoke real cigarettes (causing cancer) to convert to a safe solution. 5 to 10 years from now they will evolve and change to look nothing like cigarettes because nobody in their right mind would continue to subject themselves to cancer voluntarily when there is a safe solution.
Honestly, think about it; Real cigarettes are legal, but they definately cause cancer! Isn't that the problem? The problem has not gone away in the last 30 or more years, it has only gotten worse. Electronic cigarettes WILL solve the problem. They will simply eliminate real cigarettes. No more lung, mouth and throat cancer.
Now, all that said; Who in their right mind would possibly even consider saying "stop e-cig sales"??? The only possible person who could possibly say such a ludicrous thing would be someone who is either ignorant or one who makes a profit from the sales of real cigarettes.
There is my 2 cents worth
Well.. First post. I thought signing that petition was good enough reason to finally sign up here. I've been reading through this place for months now.
My wife Christye and I are frequent e-smokers. We get our stuff from Steve over at Puresmoker and some of the other suppliers around here.
Here is what I sent to the Senator...
He's got contributions from big pharm companies so I doubt he'll listen... But, at least he knows we are out here right?
**edit** I included the url to the studies above but I can't post em' till' I've been around for 15 posts... ( good call tho... wish I'd thought of that a forum I used to run )
My wife Christye and I are frequent e-smokers. We get our stuff from Steve over at Puresmoker and some of the other suppliers around here.
Here is what I sent to the Senator...
He's got contributions from big pharm companies so I doubt he'll listen... But, at least he knows we are out here right?
**edit** I included the url to the studies above but I can't post em' till' I've been around for 15 posts... ( good call tho... wish I'd thought of that a forum I used to run )
For all the folks writing and posting these great letters just a caution: If you are still in the job market, IDing yourself here is likely to mark you as a smoker and/or ecig user in pre-employment checks, even prior to an interview.
Please consider whether or not that is in your best interest and feel free to edit that information out of your posts.
just a caution: If you are still in the job market, IDing yourself here is likely to mark you as a smoker and/or ecig user in pre-employment checks, even prior to an interview. Please consider whether or not that is in your best interest and feel free to edit that information out of your posts.
Here is the letter I sent to Sen. Lautenberg last week:
Dear Senator,
This is in regards to your proposed ban on electronic cigarettes. Of course I agree that these devices should be put through testing. But in the meantime, unless they are proven to be unsafe, I urge that we be permitted to continue using our electronic cigarettes and enjoying a tobacco-free life. I was a 2+ pack a day smoker for 34 years. Over the years I tried patches, gum, pills,etc., but nothing worked for me. I got this electronic cigarette device over 2 months ago and I have not had a tobacco cigarette since. I can breath better, I have more energy, and my family no longer has to suffer from the smell or the second-hand smoke. They have worked for several of my friends and relatives as well. If electronic cigarettes are banned, I am afraid that myself and thousands of others may wind up reverting back to tobacco cigarettes with their 4000+ ingredients and 60 known carcinogens.(those HAVE been tested and are proven to cause cancer and kill people, yet we can legally buy them at any corner store)
I find it very hard to believe that your proposed ban on e-cigs has anything whatsoever to do with the safety or health of the public. And I think it's appalling that a man who is known for "anti-smoking" efforts would even consider banning something that has helped thousands of people succeed in becoming tobacco-free. This device, with proper testing, has the potential to save millions of lives. The government should be embracing it and getting it approved, not trying to ban it.
I also have to wonder whether you are even aware of just how many people in the U.S. are already using these electronic cigarettes. They have been sold nationwide for awhile now. It's not just mall koisks and internet shops. They are also sold at tobacco shops, truck stops across the country, and at major nationwide big box department stores. There are several different electronic cigarette forums online. Just the one that I frequent has about 6,000 registered members. I imagine this is only a very small percentage of the people actually using this device. I'm guessing the actual number of people in the U.S. alone could very well be in the tens of thousands. This brings me to yet another disturbing concern. I fear that a ban would just push it underground. I am already seeing signs of this on the internet. People are already panicking and talking about ways to make their own refill liquid if a ban is imposed on the commercial products. This to me sounds very scary. Nicotine can be really dangerous if not handled properly, and who knows how much bacteria and contaminates could wind up in home-brewed liquid. But there would be absolutely no way possible to stop them because the ingredients needed to make e-liquid are perfectly legal and sold in just about every town across the country. As for the devices, the people already have them. It's not a disposable device, it is a mini personal vaporizer that runs on rechargable batteries. There are also countless other vaporizing devices sold legally throughout the U.S. as homeopathic and aromatherapy devices,so it is not as if people can't just find something else to use for this purpose if the e-cigs themselves get banned. I don't know about you, but to me the idea of people sitting around inhaling large amounts of home-brewed nicotine liquid through legally sold water pipes and bongs is terrifying. Maybe this sounds a bit far-fetched, but you need to realize that many people feel their only other choice would be to go back to the tobacco cigarettes that are proven to kill.
I urge you to consider what a tragedy it would be to impose a ban that could cause thousands of people to revert back to tobacco cigarettes. Also, please think about what a total mess it is going to be if this product goes underground.
Theresa LaMoria
P.S. Following is a link to a petition that has so far received close to 1,500 signatures just since the news came out about your proposed ban on e-cigs. It is not the petition itself that I want you to see, but the comments from well over 1,000 people about how these devices have helped them quit tobacco cigarettes. If you think this is just some passing fad that will simply go away with a ban, you are wrong:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/keep-life-saving-electronic-cigarettes-available
Dear Senator,
This is in regards to your proposed ban on electronic cigarettes. Of course I agree that these devices should be put through testing. But in the meantime, unless they are proven to be unsafe, I urge that we be permitted to continue using our electronic cigarettes and enjoying a tobacco-free life. I was a 2+ pack a day smoker for 34 years. Over the years I tried patches, gum, pills,etc., but nothing worked for me. I got this electronic cigarette device over 2 months ago and I have not had a tobacco cigarette since. I can breath better, I have more energy, and my family no longer has to suffer from the smell or the second-hand smoke. They have worked for several of my friends and relatives as well. If electronic cigarettes are banned, I am afraid that myself and thousands of others may wind up reverting back to tobacco cigarettes with their 4000+ ingredients and 60 known carcinogens.(those HAVE been tested and are proven to cause cancer and kill people, yet we can legally buy them at any corner store)
I find it very hard to believe that your proposed ban on e-cigs has anything whatsoever to do with the safety or health of the public. And I think it's appalling that a man who is known for "anti-smoking" efforts would even consider banning something that has helped thousands of people succeed in becoming tobacco-free. This device, with proper testing, has the potential to save millions of lives. The government should be embracing it and getting it approved, not trying to ban it.
I also have to wonder whether you are even aware of just how many people in the U.S. are already using these electronic cigarettes. They have been sold nationwide for awhile now. It's not just mall koisks and internet shops. They are also sold at tobacco shops, truck stops across the country, and at major nationwide big box department stores. There are several different electronic cigarette forums online. Just the one that I frequent has about 6,000 registered members. I imagine this is only a very small percentage of the people actually using this device. I'm guessing the actual number of people in the U.S. alone could very well be in the tens of thousands. This brings me to yet another disturbing concern. I fear that a ban would just push it underground. I am already seeing signs of this on the internet. People are already panicking and talking about ways to make their own refill liquid if a ban is imposed on the commercial products. This to me sounds very scary. Nicotine can be really dangerous if not handled properly, and who knows how much bacteria and contaminates could wind up in home-brewed liquid. But there would be absolutely no way possible to stop them because the ingredients needed to make e-liquid are perfectly legal and sold in just about every town across the country. As for the devices, the people already have them. It's not a disposable device, it is a mini personal vaporizer that runs on rechargable batteries. There are also countless other vaporizing devices sold legally throughout the U.S. as homeopathic and aromatherapy devices,so it is not as if people can't just find something else to use for this purpose if the e-cigs themselves get banned. I don't know about you, but to me the idea of people sitting around inhaling large amounts of home-brewed nicotine liquid through legally sold water pipes and bongs is terrifying. Maybe this sounds a bit far-fetched, but you need to realize that many people feel their only other choice would be to go back to the tobacco cigarettes that are proven to kill.
I urge you to consider what a tragedy it would be to impose a ban that could cause thousands of people to revert back to tobacco cigarettes. Also, please think about what a total mess it is going to be if this product goes underground.
Theresa LaMoria
P.S. Following is a link to a petition that has so far received close to 1,500 signatures just since the news came out about your proposed ban on e-cigs. It is not the petition itself that I want you to see, but the comments from well over 1,000 people about how these devices have helped them quit tobacco cigarettes. If you think this is just some passing fad that will simply go away with a ban, you are wrong:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/keep-life-saving-electronic-cigarettes-available
Last edited:
here's the letter I wrote, it's a bit sappy, but I wanted to pull from the whole "I have hope now, don't take that away from me" feeling.
I signed the petition too!!
I've only been using my E-cigarette for about a week now, and in that time, I haven't had a single regular cigarette, we call them "analogs". I think this is a miracle. Putting a ban on E-cigarettes or some crazy FDA regulations is not a good idea in my opinion. I understand wanting to make sure that our health is not at risk, but considering the alternative, well, I personally think just about ANYTHING is better than the alternative. Cigarettes aren't monitored the way the FDA would want to monitor E-cigs. Tobacco companies can put whatever they want into their cigarettes, we should be allowed to make the best choice for ourselves. No matter what the outcome of the proven effects or lack there of of E-cigs, it's ultimately our decision to choose between "the lesser of the two evils" to put it simply. I tucked my daughter in tonight, and for the first time ever, she smelled my hair and said, "Mommy, you smell good!" That is incredible. E-cigarettes are liberating, empowering, and as cheesy as it sounds, represent our freedom. We are no longer slaves to tobacco companies and insane cigarette prices. Not to mention, the E-cig is better for the environment! It's smoking gone GREEN! No ashes, no butts piling up in trash cans and street corners. Most importantly, no noxious clouds of toxic smoke roiling out of our lungs, flooding our houses, and just making life in general, stink.
Please consider that for many of us, this has become a life line. Without it we will ultimately "light up" again and be back where we started, smoking away our own death sentences. As morbid as it sounds, this is how I feel.
Thank you for your time.
Pascale Douglas
27 year old single mom with a new hope
I signed the petition too!!
I've only been using my E-cigarette for about a week now, and in that time, I haven't had a single regular cigarette, we call them "analogs". I think this is a miracle. Putting a ban on E-cigarettes or some crazy FDA regulations is not a good idea in my opinion. I understand wanting to make sure that our health is not at risk, but considering the alternative, well, I personally think just about ANYTHING is better than the alternative. Cigarettes aren't monitored the way the FDA would want to monitor E-cigs. Tobacco companies can put whatever they want into their cigarettes, we should be allowed to make the best choice for ourselves. No matter what the outcome of the proven effects or lack there of of E-cigs, it's ultimately our decision to choose between "the lesser of the two evils" to put it simply. I tucked my daughter in tonight, and for the first time ever, she smelled my hair and said, "Mommy, you smell good!" That is incredible. E-cigarettes are liberating, empowering, and as cheesy as it sounds, represent our freedom. We are no longer slaves to tobacco companies and insane cigarette prices. Not to mention, the E-cig is better for the environment! It's smoking gone GREEN! No ashes, no butts piling up in trash cans and street corners. Most importantly, no noxious clouds of toxic smoke roiling out of our lungs, flooding our houses, and just making life in general, stink.
Please consider that for many of us, this has become a life line. Without it we will ultimately "light up" again and be back where we started, smoking away our own death sentences. As morbid as it sounds, this is how I feel.
Thank you for your time.
Pascale Douglas
27 year old single mom with a new hope
David,
this is wonderful! You said a lot of the same things on my mind! We are out here, and yes, what's worse? Having crazy nicfitting people running around the streets trying to score some juice, maybe it's pure, maybe not? Or letting us make up our own minds about how we go about our addictions?
Well said!
Privatechickan, After I read your post, I couldn't help, but I have to say 'Awww'.....
What ever gonna happen with the future of e-cig, please don't go back to analog cig. Think of your children.
What ever gonna happen with the future of e-cig, please don't go back to analog cig. Think of your children.
This is a beautiful, well thought out letter. (Much better than the one I sent to my reps
)May I suggest you send it to major newspapers and news stations as an "Open letter to Sen. Lautenberg"
I like the reference to home-brew as it brought visions of groups in smoky tents to my mind. An "e-cig den" 8-o
This dbag makes me ashamed to be a Democrat. Howver, I'm NEVER going back to analogs, and lautenberg can put that in his pipe and smoke it. Even DIY liquid is probably safer than analogs anyways.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
